The Catholic Church

[Michael Wrenn]

Ok, since you asked, I will further explain why.




The mistake you are making here is the words "play a part IN justification." James does not teach or say that. They do play a part WITH justification but not "IN" justification. They are an accessory to justification but not "IN" justification. Where there is justification by faith there are works or there is no justification by faith because where there is justification by faith there is regeneration or being "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works."

James makes it very clear he is talking about a POST-PROFESSION type of person who is recognized as "ONE OF YOU" or ONE OF THOSE in James 2:1-9 - a baptized church member or ONE OF THOSE in James 1:18 recognized by that church BEFORE accepting them as a member already professing to have been REGENERATED. By context this kind of person is one the church recognizes as "ONE OF YOU" or by profession a regenerated believer who claims justification by faith.



Not really! Not as long as you choose to define your position that "works" are "IN" justification as that is the same camp as the RCC.

Alright,change the preposition then, and that puts me out of the RCC camp. Sheesh!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Milby…the Reformation saw no new revelation…the Roman Catholic Church was abusing her power and Luther wanted nothing more than to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within…The remaining 4 patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria) all had to deal with a zealous bishop of the patriarchate of Rome in 1054, when eventually Rome excommunicated herself from the others…It didn’t surprise the other bishops that Rome would experience the schism it did in the 1500s…

Regarding Peter and the Roman Church…Rome became known as the “Roman Catholic” Church only after the 1054 Schism…the remaining patriarchates became known as the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Each of the 5 patriarchates were established by an Apostle and they elected the bishop…in the case of Rome…Both St. Paul and St. Peter spent time in Rome and set up Churches…St. Paul elected St. Linus as Rome’s first Bishop…

There was no “pope” as we know it today…there was no pope in Rome speaking “ex cathedral” on matters regarding dogmatic teachings of faith and morals…if so where was the pope during the early ecumenical councils, speaking “ex cathedral”?

That is complete fallacy. There were no monarchical bishops until the late second century. "Bishop" and "pastor" were the same office in the NT.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is complete fallacy. There were no monarchical bishops until the late second century. "Bishop" and "pastor" were the same office in the NT.

Clement and Ignatius were both early in the 2nd Century and it is clear by their writings to have shown a bishopric established in the Churches at that time. So you seem to be reforming history a bit. Certainly we can see Clement exhibiting authority over another church in Corinth. Which had its own bishop. What you probably mean to say is that a singular bishop over a Metropolitan area was seen in the late 2nd Century. But it would only make sense as the spread of the faith occured. But a hiarchial Bishop Episcopos above a regular "presbyter" is seen earlier on.

 

[DHK]

Clement and Ignatius were both early in the 2nd Century and it is clear by their writings to have shown a bishopric established in the Churches at that time. So you seem to be reforming history a bit. Certainly we can see Clement exhibiting authority over another church in Corinth. Which had its own bishop. What you probably mean to say is that a singular bishop over a Metropolitan area was seen in the late 2nd Century. But it would only make sense as the spread of the faith occured. But a hiarchial Bishop Episcopos above a regular "presbyter" is seen earlier on.

He that desires the office of a "bishop" (overseer, and hence a pastor) desires a good thing. (1Tim.3:1)

James was the bishop/pastor of the Church at Jerusalem. It was he that announced the decision made in Acts 15. He not only announced it, he declared it to be his decision. "Wherefore my brethren My decision is..." He, as pastor, took into account all the evidence and made the final decision.

Churches from around the area often went to James for advice and council. He was prominent, wise, and was seen as one who had a certain advantage over others, for he was the half-brother of Jesus. But the church itself had no power over any other church. They were all independent.

The same is true with Paul. Look at Corinth. There was at least four different letters written by Paul to the church at Corinth, but Paul had only remained there for 18 months. The pastorate changed hands. They still sought advice from Paul. He wasn't their continuing bishop, or arch-bishop, or cardinal, etc. He had no special office in that church. They simply looked to this wise man for advice. There was no denomination in place when those letters were written.

Paul established over 100 churches. There is no evidence that any church exercised power over another.

 

[billwald]

In Paul's legit letters women have equal rights and the local churches were organized by the congregations. The "Pastorals" written after Paul's death, the local churches were governed by a higher organization, and women were second class members.

 

[The Biblicist]

Alright,change the preposition then, and that puts me out of the RCC camp. Sheesh!

Theology is determined by correct and incorrect terms. The preposition "in" places works within the doctrine of justification where as the preposition "with" does not.

This distinction is technically and Biblical correct. Ephesians 2:10 proves that "good works" are the product of being "CREATED in Christ" Jesus not with justification by faith.

The context of James demands that the kind of person being discussed is not a person who is BECOMING a believer but one who has already professed to be regenerated (James 1:18) and that profession has brought them into a congregational body (James 2:1-8) and is regarded as "ONE OF YOU" (James 2:16) and is in a pragmatic relationship to those in need who are regarded as a "brother" or "sister" (James 2:15).

Hence, James is dealing pragmatically with the professed and recognized justified man which is "ONE OF YOU" that Paul deals with in Romans 6-8. Paul demands the very same thing as Paul denies there can be real justification by faith without regenerative life and its manifest fruits. Hence, a profession of justification by faith without ANY works is no better than unregenerated demons professing they believe in God as demons are incapable of doing ANY good works due to their unregenerated condition. Hence, good works always accompany true justification by faith because justification by faith is impossible apart from regeneration which is "unto good works."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He that desires the office of a "bishop" (overseer, and hence a pastor) desires a good thing. (1Tim.3:1)

which has nothing to do with the conversation since we both agree there was an office of the bishop.

James was the bishop/pastor of the Church at Jerusalem.

He certainly was the Episkopos which at that time had one for each church. The administrative duties grew as membership grew so did the position

It was he that announced the decision made in Acts 15. He not only announced it, he declared it to be his decision. "Wherefore my brethren My decision is..."

Only after following the que of Peter who said

No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Note in verse 14 shows James taking Peter's que when he says

listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.

He, as pastor, took into account all the evidence and made the final decision

He as bishop of the church of Jerusalem asserted the decision.

Churches from around the area often went to James for advice and council.

Yep. He was a good bishop.

He was prominent, wise, and was seen as one who had a certain advantage over others, for he was the half-brother of Jesus

He certainly seemed wise and a good leader as he is titled James the Just.

But the church itself had no power over any other church. They were all independent.

That same Chapter refutes this statement that council of Jerusalem set the requirments and standard for all Churches and was represented by the Apostles themselves. Look at this verse

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas...We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said...Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

Certainly expressing authority over the other churches.

The same is true with Paul. Look at Corinth. There was at least four different letters written by Paul to the church at Corinth, but Paul had only remained there for 18 months. The pastorate changed hands. They still sought advice from Paul. He wasn't their continuing bishop, or arch-bishop, or cardinal, etc

Paul was also an apostle and had responsibility over many churches and thus the churches looked at him as authoritative because of his position. He certainly established an episkopos over the churches he established by the laying on of hands as is described in the book of Acts.

He had no special office in that church.

Do you really want me to believe apostle isn't an office? And that this office isn't over all the churches? Funny.

They simply looked to this wise man for advice.

Oh so you're saying they could take or leave whatever Paul told them. Suprising then that you have such a regard for his letters calling them inspired word of God rather than just good advice from a good man.

There was no denomination in place when those letters were written

You are right there was the one faith that applied to all the Churches who were under the apostles. One consistant faith applied universally to all churches. Or On Holy and Universal Church that was apostolic in Origin. Or you can say On Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Paul established over 100 churches. There is no evidence that any church exercised power over another

Certainly Clement exercised authority (not power two different consepts) over the church in Corinth. As for in the NT. The apostles and James excercised authority over the churches in antioch to be excersised throughout all the churches where gentiles participated.

 

[DHK]

which has nothing to do with the conversation since we both agree there was an office of the bishop.

We don't agree on the definition of "bishop." What the RCC parades around as a "bishop" today does not resemble at all what the Bible describes as a "bishop" in 1Tim.3ff. He certainly doesn't know how "to take care of his own household, having his children in subjection."

He certainly was the Episkopos which at that time had one for each church. The administrative duties grew as membership grew so did the position

Episcopos--same word as bishop or overseer. The pastor.
James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Full stop. No need to read anything else into this. He pastored this one church.
An office doesn't grow. Responsibilities grow. My wife gained more responsibilities as our family grew. But her "office" as a wife and mother did not grow. Your statement makes no sense. Because the responsibilities grew, servants were appointed to help in the work (Acts 6), and their names are recorded. Later on the office of the deacon was established, and their qualifications are also listed in 1Tim.3. The "office" of the pastor doesn't grow. Responsibilities grow.

Only after following the que of Peter who said

It doesn't matter what Peter said. He could have sang like an angel, "Glory to God in the highest," but it still was James' decision. It was James that was the pastor of the church. James had the authority. In this scenario, Peter was slightly irrelevant. Even Paul's voice and testimony had more influence than Peter.

Note in verse 14 shows James taking Peter's que when he says

I would rather notice the influence of Paul

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
--As one would say: "You wouldn't hear a pin drop when he spoke."

He as bishop of the church of Jerusalem asserted the decision.

Immediately after Paul spoke this is what is recorded:
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:19 "Therefore my judgment is that we don't trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, (WEB)

Acts 15:19 wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God, (Young's literal)
--This was more than just an assertion. It was his judgment; his sentence, his decision.

He certainly seemed wise and a good leader as he is titled James the Just.

This is hard for you to accept isn't it?
Gabelein explains the authorship this way:

What we have stated above identifies the author of this Epistle. Who is James (Greek: Jacobos--Jacob)? Certainly not James, the apostle, the son of Zebedee. He was martyred in the year 44, as recorded in Ac 12:2. Nor can the author be James, the son of Alphaeus, another apostle. His name is mentioned for the last time in the New Testament in Ac 1:13. We hear nothing more about him, and it is inconceivable that he should have held a position of authority which belongs to the author of this Epistle. There is another James, who is designated as "the brother of the Lord." He has been generally accepted, even by critics, as the author of the Epistle.

--There are not many that would dispute the authorship here, that James is the half-brother of Christ, the same as the author of the book of James.

Also:
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

--Jude calls himself the brother of James, and according to Mat.13:55 both are mentioned as brothers of Christ.

Then:
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

--Now the Bible itself declares that James is the Lord's brother. It is difficult to deny the very words of Scripture here.

That same Chapter refutes this statement that council of Jerusalem set the requirments and standard for all Churches and was represented by the Apostles themselves. Look at this verse Certainly expressing authority over the other churches.

The church at Jerusalem had no authority over any other churches and that passage does not show it. James gave his judgment. "It seemed good to the rest of the apostles and the church." So they decided to send Paul and Silas to inform other churches of the final decision that was made on this very contentious issue of legalism entering into salvation. It had been settled once and for all. The Judaizers had been formally silenced. There is no authority over any other church. This was squashing false doctrine.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--It was all about false doctrine. Other churches could be notified that these false teachers, the Judaizers were wrong, and should be ignored. "Put them on 'ignore.'" Authority had nothing to do with it.

Paul was also an apostle and had responsibility over many churches and thus the churches looked at him as authoritative because of his position. He certainly established an episkopos over the churches he established by the laying on of hands as is described in the book of Acts.

Episkopos--bishop or pastor, that is all. A pastor pastors a church. Your understanding of this word is skewed by your RCC theology. The word "apostle" has two different meanings. First there are about 19 apostles in the NT. Apart from "The Twelve" there was Paul, Barnabas, Sylvanus, Timotheus, and perhaps some others. The word is used first as in "The Twelve Apostles," and then in a more general way. "Apostolos" means "one sent with a message" (the message of the gospel). When translated into the Latin the word mittere was used, from whence our English word "missionary" comes from. A missionary is "one sent with a message," the message of the gospel. Essentially, that is the work that Paul did, the work of a missionary. He wasn't the pastor of a church or bishop. He went on three different missionary journeys, establishing churches. His was missionary work.
Every where he went he established churches.
Then he ordained elders, or appointed a pastor over the church he established, just as he left Apollos in charge of the church at Corinth when he left. There was no denomination. Each church was separate.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed. ASV

Do you really want me to believe apostle isn't an office? And that this office isn't over all the churches? Funny.

No, he was a missionary. He was also an apostle, but since the apostles worked independently of the churches they did not have authority over any of the churches. That was evident in chapter 15. It was James, not the apostles that made the decision.

Oh so you're saying they could take or leave whatever Paul told them. Suprising then that you have such a regard for his letters calling them inspired word of God rather than just good advice from a good man.

Each letter had its own purpose. When Paul wrote to Philemon, for example, it was a plea for forgiveness on the part of a runaway slave who had stolen something. He was asking Philemon to forgive the slave on his (Paul's) behalf, and that Paul himself would restore to him the value of any loss that he had incurred. Philemon could grant his request or not. The choice was his. Most definitely, he was not compelled to take Paul's advice. In fact the entire letter was a heartfelt appeal from prison on behalf of Paul for forgiveness. Inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit, not from Paul himself. Four letters were written to Corinth. Only two were inspired. However common sense would dictate that believers would take this wise man's advice seriously.

You are right there was the one faith that applied to all the Churches who were under the apostles. One consistant faith applied universally to all churches. Or On Holy and Universal Church that was apostolic in Origin. Or you can say On Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.
--We are commanded to contend for the faith. Not the faith of the RCC, the faith of the Bible, the faith as we know it today, as expressed especially in the NT, which the RCC despises today even as they despise sola scriptura and sola fide.

Certainly Clement exercised authority (not power two different consepts) over the church in Corinth. As for in the NT. The apostles and James excercised authority over the churches in antioch to be excersised throughout all the churches where gentiles participated.

You mean to say that Clement was the pastor at Corinth; James at the church at Jerusalem; and there were others at Antioch. (Acts 13:1)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Theology is determined by correct and incorrect terms. The preposition "in" places works within the doctrine of justification where as the preposition "with" does not.

This distinction is technically and Biblical correct. Ephesians 2:10 proves that "good works" are the product of being "CREATED in Christ" Jesus not with justification by faith.

The context of James demands that the kind of person being discussed is not a person who is BECOMING a believer but one who has already professed to be regenerated (James 1:18) and that profession has brought them into a congregational body (James 2:1-8) and is regarded as "ONE OF YOU" (James 2:16) and is in a pragmatic relationship to those in need who are regarded as a "brother" or "sister" (James 2:15).

Hence, James is dealing pragmatically with the professed and recognized justified man which is "ONE OF YOU" that Paul deals with in Romans 6-8. Paul demands the very same thing as Paul denies there can be real justification by faith without regenerative life and its manifest fruits. Hence, a profession of justification by faith without ANY works is no better than unregenerated demons professing they believe in God as demons are incapable of doing ANY good works due to their unregenerated condition. Hence, good works always accompany true justification by faith because justification by faith is impossible apart from regeneration which is "unto good works."

Well, James says we are justified "by" works, not "in" or "with". Just keeping to the literal words.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We don't agree on the definition of "bishop."

The greek translation means overseer. We certainly agree with the definition. However the word Presbyteros means elder and Diakon means servant.

Episcopos--same word as bishop or overseer. The pastor

I don't disagree with this definition. I just hold the presbyteros assisted the episkopos and the Daikon also had a role.

James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Full stop

What wrong with calling him bishop certainly the new testament calls him that?

Your statement makes no sense. Because the responsibilities grew, servants were appointed to help in the work (Acts 6), and their names are recorded. Later on the office of the deacon was established, and their qualifications are also listed in 1Tim.3. The "office" of the pastor doesn't grow. Responsibilities grow.

You've answered your own argument. As membership grew the roles the bishops were to play took on more requirements thus they needed help the deacons were established to help the bishops handle the affairs so the bishops could get to the business of pastoring the people thus a higharchy was established deacons assisted the bishop. The Bishop pastored the church and the Apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and the faith but still were in authority over the bishops. And as time went on and administrative duties increased so did the responsibilities. quite a natural development. I think you have a misunderstanding of the role of bishop in the catholic community. They are the primary pastor for an area. The presbyteros assist the bishop in that area as the daikonate assist botht he episkopos and the presbyteros and the people. I also don't think you understand the world 2,000 years ago and the Metro-polis and how things functioned in those days. But you are in the habit of reforming history to your ends.

It doesn't matter what Peter said

It does or the NT would have recorded him.

He could have sang like an angel, "Glory to God in the highest," but it still was James' decision. It was James that was the pastor of the church. James had the authority. In this scenario, Peter was slightly irrelevant. Even Paul's voice and testimony had more influence than Peter.
I would rather notice the influence of Paul

The only real influence of Paul was not his authority but his great argument! Especially with noting his background being a pharisee. It is noted in that same passage that the people wouldn't have even listen to Paul had not Peter introduced the argument

.--This was more than just an assertion

It was exactly that.

It was his judgment; his sentence, his decision.

You ignore what was in the letter

We have heard ...that some ...without our authorization...So we all agreed ...Therefore we are sending ... to confirm ...what we are writing.

It is clear then that the body of Apostles with the church in Jerusalem had 1. authority over the churches and the treachings because they indicated that people without their authority disturbed the church in Antioch. And with that auhtority the body (Church council) was able to make a definitive requirement for the gentiles. The passage is clear.

This is hard for you to accept isn't it?

What is hard for me to accept. Your personal interpretation of scripture? If you treat it like you do history certainly.

The church at Jerusalem had no authority over any other churches and that passage does not show it

It absolutely does as I've just shown. Do you really expect me to believe they sent people to confirm their writing so that Antioch could do what ever they wanted and treat gentiles however they wanted. Logically you also fall short.

The bottom line DHK you have two problems. 1. You clearly read scriptures from a biased position. 2. You really have no idea what Catholics believe. Just because you came from a catholic family doesn't mean you know anything the church teaches. Your family and your knowledge of Catholic doctrine shows what type of Catholic you really were. Its what real Catholics call Catholic in Name Only or better yet non converted Catholics. You were no more Catholic at that time than Nancy Pelosi or Sebelius. Both of whom fight against the catholic church all the while claiming they are following Catholic teaching. I was once in the exact same boat which is why I left the Church but latter came back after actually studying what they actually believed.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, James says we are justified "by" works, not "in" or "with". Just keeping to the literal words.

That is fine. However, that does not change the contextual characterization of the kind of person he is talking about does it?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

After being on the BaptistBoard for over 12 years, these 'Catholic' threads are still fun reads. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

The greek translation means overseer. We certainly agree with the definition. However the word Presbyteros means elder and Diakon means servant.

The only word that doesn't apply to the bishop or overseer or elder (all the same person) is diakon, a distinct work used for deacon.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church.
--The word here is presbuteros. He called the pastors from the church of Ephesus to Miletus. From vs. 18 to 35 he is going to give them words of instruction and comfort before he goes on to Jerusalem. But first he identifies these men as presbuteros.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--He commands them to feed the flock. This is the work of a pastor.
--He then says God has made them overseers, using the word episkopos
--All three functions are attributed to the same person, the same group of people. The church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders or pastors all of whom were called bishops. They were all names for the same office, describing different functions of the same office.

I don't disagree with this definition. I just hold the presbyteros assisted the episkopos and the Daikon also had a role.

Presbuteros and episkopos were the same person.

What wrong with calling him bishop certainly the new testament calls him that?

Because there was no RCC. Your definition is colored by the RCC which did not exist until the 4th century. A bishop is the same person as a pastor and did the exact same work.

You've answered your own argument. As membership grew the roles the bishops were to play took on more requirements thus they needed help the deacons were established to help the bishops handle the affairs so the bishops could get to the business of pastoring the people thus a higharchy was established deacons assisted the bishop.

Your conclusion is wrong. You can't get hierarchy out of the Bible. You were doing fine until you hit the word hierarchy. When the bishop/pastor needed help he needed deacons, so he could attend to the business of pastoring. Thus the need for deacons. There was no need for a hierarchy. That conclusion is ludicrous and unbiblical.

The Bishop pastored the church and the Apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and the faith but still were in authority over the bishops.

That is false. The apostles wrote the Scriptures. They were looked to for guidance. When the first century came to a close the apostolic office was never replaced. Its function had ceased. They had no authority over any churches. Remember that James was not an apostle, neither Timothy at Ephesus, neither Titus in Crete, neither Apollos in Corinth. There was no denomination here either.

And as time went on and administrative duties increased so did the responsibilities. quite a natural development. I think you have a misunderstanding of the role of bishop in the catholic community.

I don't think I have, but that is irrelevant. We are not speaking of the RCC bishops. We are speaking of what the Bible says of a bishop. That is what is of paramount importance, isn't it?

They are the primary pastor for an area. The presbyteros assist the bishop in that area as the daikonate assist botht he episkopos and the presbyteros and the people. I also don't think you understand the world 2,000 years ago and the Metro-polis and how things functioned in those days. But you are in the habit of reforming history to your ends.

You are forcing how the RCC operates today into the Bible and culture of 2,000 years ago. That is absurd. The RCC of today has nothing to do with times of the Apostle Paul. There was no hierarchy. There were independent churches, each having their own congregational government. No one interfered in the decision that the church at Corinth had to make as one church body in the excommunication of a member for immorality in 1Cor.5:1-5. They did under the advice of Paul, to be sure. But it was the church that did it, not under the authority of Jerusalem or any other church. There was no hierarchy. Every church was independent of each other.

It does or the NT would have recorded him.

What Peter said was his testimony. It was James that made the decision. Peter was no more influential than Barnabas or Paul.

The only real influence of Paul was not his authority but his great argument! Especially with noting his background being a pharisee. It is noted in that same passage that the people wouldn't have even listen to Paul had not Peter introduced the argument It was exactly that.

Where does it say that? It doesn't. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. From verse one we read that Paul came down for this very reason. They listened with great intent what Paul had to say. He was an expert in this matter having dealt with many of the Judaizers already.

You ignore what was in the letter It is clear then that the body of Apostles with the church in Jerusalem had 1. authority over the churches and the treachings because they indicated that people without their authority disturbed the church in Antioch. And with that auhtority the body (Church council) was able to make a definitive requirement for the gentiles. The passage is clear.

Here is what you ignore.

There was no introduction by Peter:
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And then what happened:
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

James concludes by saying:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (This was his judgment).

And then his advice:
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The apostles and others react to James advice:
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

James gave the advice. The apostles and church accepted it. They decided to send Paul and Barnabas to inform others of the decision made, which was primarily the advice or judgment that James came to. It was not binding. It was for churches like those in Galatia that were bothered by Judaizers. Now they had an authoritative answer to give them.
We have an authoritative answer to give such people written in the Word of God which they didn't have at that time. This church did not have authority over any other church.

What is hard for me to accept. Your personal interpretation of scripture? If you treat it like you do history certainly.

It is hardly a "personal" interpretation when I have gone verse by verse through the passage for you. I don't read into the passage, like you do. I don't read into the passage through those rose-colored RCC eyes.

It absolutely does as I've just shown. Do you really expect me to believe they sent people to confirm their writing so that Antioch could do what ever they wanted and treat gentiles however they wanted. Logically you also fall short.

It was not a matter of doing whatever one wanted. It was a matter of dealing with false doctrine, as the context gives:

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

The bottom line DHK you have two problems. 1. You clearly read scriptures from a biased position. 2. You really have no idea what Catholics believe. Just because you came from a catholic family doesn't mean you know anything the church teaches. Your family and your knowledge of Catholic doctrine shows what type of Catholic you really were. Its what real Catholics call Catholic in Name Only or better yet non converted Catholics. You were no more Catholic at that time than Nancy Pelosi or Sebelius. Both of whom fight against the catholic church all the while claiming they are following Catholic teaching. I was once in the exact same boat which is why I left the Church but latter came back after actually studying what they actually believed.

This discussion (regarding Acts 15) has nothing to do with the RCC position. It has to do with the Biblical position on what a Bishop is; what authority the NT churches had, if denominationalism existed in the NT, etc. All these questions are answered here. All the RCC teaches are denied in these passages. These passages teach that what the RCC teaches is absolutely unbiblical and has no foundation in biblical truth.

We do not start with the RCC and work backwards.
We start with Biblical truth and work forwards. You are the one that is doing things in a backward way, proving yourself to be wrong on almost every issue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The only word that doesn't apply to the bishop or overseer or elder (all the same person) is diakon, a distinct work used for deacon.

You see as in the book of acts Deacon wasn't initially an established position. The position was created by the Apostles so they could keep to their primary duties of passing on the faith. acts 6:1-

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained... because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food... So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said... We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

So that position grew. Now I do agree that in the NT the word's were interchagably used Presbyteros and Episkopos however just like churches today and in the statement of the above example from acts we see that as the number of people grew in the church the necessity to spread out functions became very aparant. The apostles couldn't stay and pastor because they were to be missionaries thus the term "apostles". They were sent to teach what Jesus had taught them. So at first Episkopos and the Presbytos are interchangeable use of the term but as their churches grew (just like today) responsibility for special functions got spread around. Today you see it in the many different "Pastors" you have the Music Pastor, the youth Pastor, but still there is the head Pastor who has greater authority than the Music and the Youth pastors. So in the same way the Episkopos took on more administrative functions and had the Presbyteros perform supportive functions. Its a natural growth of things just as it is today that you find in baptist churches that are larger than say 100 people. Which is why Clement is speaking specifically about the head pastor of Corinth when he writes his letter to the Corinthians

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration...For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.

Further we have Ignatius say

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Thus we see that at this point at the very end of the first century and the begining of the second century the church leadership progressed into 3 distinct leaders. the Episkopos, Presbyteros, and the Deaconate.

Because there was no RCC. Your definition is colored by the RCC which did not exist until the 4th century.

First of all that is not true. We see the Catholic Church as early as the end of the 1st Century as can be seen in the above quote from Ignatius.

A bishop is the same person as a pastor and did the exact same work.

Until the workload became untennable as can be seen in Acts 6.

Your conclusion is wrong. You can't get hierarchy out of the Bible. You were doing fine until you hit the word hierarchy. When the bishop/pastor needed help he needed deacons, so he could attend to the business of pastoring. Thus the need for deacons. There was no need for a hierarchy. That conclusion is ludicrous and unbiblical.

Not true. Throughout the bible starting with the OT and into the New there is always a demonstrable Hierarchy presented. Jesus at the top, next the Apostles with btw Peter always being listed first then the other disciples. Later you had the Apostles, then church leaders, and finally the layity.

That is false. The apostles wrote the Scriptures.

It's true. Why were the Apostles writings considered scripture? You'll make some statement such as that the writings were considered scripture because they were the inspired word of God. Agreeably that is true. However, how were they determined to be the inspired word of God? Because they matched up with direct apostolic teaching. In otherwords the churches didn't consider that the Apostles were just some nice wise guys that offered good advice but that they themselves and what they spoke were inspired by God as can be seen in Peter's letter

just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.

and again

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty... We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it...

They were looked to for guidance. When the first century came to a close the apostolic office was never replaced. Its function had ceased. They had no authority over any churches.

Not true at all as can be seen in Acts 15. Accordingly, the letter they sent to Antioch could certainly have been ignored by that church and it would have been no less for it. Clearly James and the Apostles certainly felt they had authority to tell Antioch how they must treat their gentile believers. Also note what Paul said to the Thessalonians

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter

and we can see direct apostolic authority in acts 16

[ As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey/QUOTE]

You are forcing how the RCC operates today into the Bible and culture of 2,000 years ago.

Not at all. I'm rellying on personal witness of People who lived 2,000 years ago. As I have shown.

That is absurd. The RCC of today has nothing to do with times of the Apostle Paul. There was no hierarchy.

Actually, the RCC can trace itself right back to the apostles. Though there have been certain changes the deposit of faith never has.

There were independent churches, each having their own congregational government.

They were united by faith. and only independent in the sense that it took a long time to get to each church and they didn't have phones, cars, or quick transportation. The fact that letters addressed to a specific church was considered to have universal relevance to all the churches and they copied and sent copies of apostolic letters only shows how united they were.

No one interfered in the decision that the church at Corinth

certainly Paul did and asked to exommunicate someone. Clearly by Clements letter he was speaking authoritatively.

What Peter said was his testimony.

No Peter gave more than just a testimony

Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

He set the standard and declared something dogmatically ie "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are". Ie... Peter for the first time makes a clear dogmatic statement that gentiles are saved the same way the Jewish believers are. Peter set the Bar. Paul and Barnabas gave a testimony

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them

James made his decision based on the dogmatic stance of Peter and the testimoney to the work of the Holy Spirit by Paul and Barnabas as he states in his letter with the approval of the whole assembly.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit

 

[OldRegular]

I haven't found anything written that says 'that tradition and the teaching of the magisterium supersede scripture.' I have found writings that state that no teaching/Tradition can be in conflict with scripture. You may claim that in actuality that is the case and they would say it can't happen. Anyway, that is my understanding of what the Church teaches.

Consider the following Scripture:

Hebrews 9:27, 28
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Now read what Trent states about the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass and tell me that tradition and the teaching magisterium does not trump Scripture. In fact every error in the RCC is proof that tradition and the teaching magisterium trump Scripture.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

 

[OldRegular]

Both St. Paul and St. Peter spent time in Rome and set up Churches…St. Paul elected St. Linus as Rome’s first Bishop…

Scripture shows that the Apostle Paul was in Rome. Where is the evidence that Peter was ever in Rome? I saw a movie once!

 

[OldRegular]

Actually, the RCC can trace itself right back to the apostles. Though there have been certain changes the deposit of faith never has.

If by RCC you mean Roman Catholic Communion the above statement is nonsense. If you believe that don't wait but speed down to the local papist priest.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Scripture shows that the Apostle Paul was in Rome. Where is the evidence that Peter was ever in Rome? I saw a movie once!

The church historian, Eusebius--who had access to earlier source material (like Papias and Hegisippus) that we no longer have--docemented it.

 

[WestminsterMan]

On a side note: I was at a Parachurch meeting on Thursday and there were many Catholics there. Every time the subject came up about differing denominations the Catholics there would always call themselves Catholics and call everyone else Christians. It seemed to be a Freudian slip. But isn't it interesting they call us Christians, what do they consider themselves?

Well, that's understandable because Catholics were the first early Christians.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, that's understandable because Catholics were the first early Christians.

WM

WM I think you better read what he said again! If your statement were true then those Catholics would be calling themselves "Christians" as that is the name the earliest people of God were called by others instead of calling themselves "Catholics" and calling others "Christians." If anything that is evidence from their own mouths they are not the first early "Christians."